It’s actually statusy vodka, or used to be. Not that I care, I’m a bourbon man. Kentucky and Tennessee style.
Fictional characters don’t go to real hell.
I like Absolut but agree about the politics.
It seems like Absolut is still trying to appeal to all markets🙄
I think when companies do this they’re betting that they’ll gain favor with urban cosmopolites by displaying their ‘virtue’ as seen by progressive thinkers, and that will offset any disfavor they generate with traditional-minded consumers. I saw this ad on a subway car (urban setting), for example. Or maybe they think the periphery-dwelling traditional-minded won’t even see it.
That’s what I thought too. I still think it’s pretty good quality (although I can’t taste much difference in vodkas unless the vodka in question is truly rotgut, and then I feel the difference immediately).
Bourbon is a really wonderful spirit.
Catholics should not watch people portraying immoral behavior.
So…no adaptions of stories from the Bible, then?
I saw The Ten Commandments (1956), it was fine. What I’m talking about is portraying sexual perversion as somehow ‘normal.’
But it is your contention as a Catholic that it is perverse, your nation is not a Catholic one or made up entirely of Catholics. Nor do all Catholics share your views.
So this also means watching police procedurals or detective whodunnit shows where murder is featured is also sin?
Nothing more immoral than murder.
I think that you’re overstating the role of TV and film in changing how Americans view homosexuality. Here’s what it says in the Wikipedia article, “History of homosexuality in American film”:
During the Second World War and the subsequent Cold War, Hollywood increasingly depicted gay men and women as sadists, psychopaths, and nefarious, anti-social villains. These depictions were driven by the censorship of the code, which was willing to allow “sexual perversion” if it was depicted in a negative manner, as well as the fact that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness and gay men and women were often harassed by the police…
Following the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City (a major turning point in the LGBT-rights movement), Hollywood began to look at gay people as a possible consumer demographic. It was also in the 1970s, that some anti-gay laws and prejudicial attitudes changed through the work of an increasingly visible LGBT-rights movement and overall attitudes in America about human sexuality, sex and gender roles changed as a result of LGBT-rights, women’s liberation and the sexual revolution…
Despite the growing tolerance of homosexuality during the 1970s, some Hollywood films throughout the decade still depicted homosexuality as an insult or a joke. Gay characters were sometimes depicted in mainstream films as dangerous misfits who needed to be cured or killed. Some films would even use anti-gay derogatory comments, often made by the protagonist, in a manner that was not done in Hollywood films with regards to other minority groups. Films like Cruising (1980) and Windows, for example, portrayed gays in an unrelentingly negative light.
It really wasn’t until the late 1980’s and early 1990’s that we started to get more positive portrayals of gay people. Before that, they were mostly negative. The LGBT rights movement and other changes in American society were much more important in changing people’s views.
This is not a good comparison. The problem is that most Mormoms, Muslims, Jews along with Christians believe that homosexual activity is immoral and goes against God’s laws. I say most because there are those who are rejecting God’s law in each group and following what the world is now saying about homosexuality. Also, many Jewish people are no longer religious but secular so they do not follow the law regarding pork.
Not showing commercials or shows with people eating pork would better be compared to Catholics not eating meat on Fridays during Lent or Seventh Day Adventists not eating meat rather than being compared to sexual immorality.
As far as alcohol, even though there are those religious who do not believe alcohol in itself is a sin, I am pretty sure most all would agree that the overconsumption, getting drunk, is a sin.
I think there was a little misunderstanding of my meaning. It is not that TV and film has been pushing the homosexual agenda since it’s beginning (though there has been some) but that they have been pushing “their” agenda, whatever it is at the time, since their beginning and a large portion of their agenda has been immorality.
Going back to the 1930’s a lot of the movies produced pushed divorce, adultery, and out of wedlock pregnancies. Not to speak of all the murders they have portrayed over the years. It’s like the writers are, hmm, how many murders can I portray in this show and how gruesome can I portray that murder?
It was due to audiences during the early days speaking out against the lewdness and immoralities of the motion picture industry that produced the Hays code. It is well noted regarding “pre-code” movies, how different they were and the immorality they contained compared to movies during the time of the Hays code. The movie Morocco, 1930, was the first movie with a lesbian kiss.
The Hays code was not the TV and movie industries idea and they pushed against it, until it was finally done away with and then we ended up with the MPAA rating system and now the media, many times ignores that. Besides they have pushed the bar of the MPAA rating system so much that movies that at one point would have been rated R are now rated PG and some movies they do not even rate. (Watching a movie that says it has not yet been rated, is watching a movie at your own risk).
One of the big influencers in the changes seen in the media regarding homosexuality (besides the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, which was a major influence), is this book that came out in 1989 - After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s.
There have been exceptions in Hollywood that have used the motion picture industry for good, such as Robert Young’s Father Knows Best, but today, those people are made fun of.
How about having a job and being afraid the employer will find out what religion I am? Or what parts of the religion I follow?
So you really can relate, I am guessing?
I added the bold part.
I think it works better that way.
It’s illegal for an employer to fire an employee for your religion.
It’s not illegal, in a lot of states, to fire gays.
But what does this have to do with same-sex marriage?
Not marriage specifically.
But I said in one of the earlier posts that gays could be fired just for being gay (and still may in some states). That is, if the employer “found out” the employee was gay, the employee could be fired.
The other poster brought up the situation of the employer finding out what religion an employee is. I replied that if the employer found out and fired the employee for that, that would be illegal.